Post-Randian Objectivism

[Merton]

Yours seems to make a little more sense, and at least be a bit more rational than that of Rand... but Ethics based on anything short of altruism is still an oxymoron.

Ethics are about helping (or at least not harming) other beings. Politically, there's nothing in the cards that says people have to behave ethically, but any other framework that does not consider others is really so much self deception, and not in keeping with the meaning of the word.

Wouldn't the maximizing of personal liberty for all rational beings, which I believe this philosophy accomplishes, be considered helpful to others? Would this not be altruist?

 

[Piscivore]

You are correct, but please see Beelzebuddy's response: we can do better than what is, and we ought to do so.

I agree, and that's the whole purpose of a society, almost any society. But if we truly want to look at it rationally, we need to not confuse our premises with pretentious, easily-confused emotional terms like "rights" and "supreme authority". Jefferson used words like that in the Declaration because the whole thing was a massive appeal to emotion. It's a bad place to look for rational thought on society and governance.

 

[Piscivore]

And the idea that you can own property but not the means of production is called "communism", just about as far away from Objectivism as you can get.

Yeah, this is a lot closer to "Post-Marx Communism".

 

[Piscivore]

Wouldn't the maximizing of personal liberty for all rational beings, which I believe this philosophy accomplishes, be considered helpful to others? Would this not be altruist?

Not necessarily. First, "more" =/= "better" and "maximizing" one aspect of a society always comes at the expense of another- perhaps many others.

Humans are social creatures. Part of being social is giving up some "personal liberty" so we can live with others who also want "personal liberty". I give up the the liberty of going to my neighbor's house, kicking the snot out of him, banging his wife, stealing his stuff and using his children as slaves, and so does he give up the liberty to do the same to me. I give up the "liberty" to sit on my ass and drink all day (or go hide in a secret village) so I won't have to pay taxes because I like having electricity and roads and such that I don't have to make myself.

"Maximizing personal liberty" sounds good on paper, but "I" cannot sustain on my own a fraction of the quality of life "We" can. "I" needs other people.

Contrariwise, direct "democratic" control of basic resources is a farce. Humans are stupid, shortsighted, selfish, and greedy, and don't stop acting that way because of high-minded words. That's where Marx went wrong, he gave humans far to much credit for decency and fairness. We can see how that worked out. I see the same flaw in your "Communalism".

Well-regulated Capitalism is the only system we have (now) that recognises and attempts to compensate for that. We can also see where it ends up when you leave off the bolded part.

 

[Humes fork]

Rationalism: Knowledge is obtained by comparing theory and observation.

This is not rationalism in the philosophical sense. For a nice summary, see Sean Carroll's blogpost on the matter.

Self-Interest Self-Sovereignty (aka autonomy, self-property): Rational² beings have free will (or the illusion thereof), and are the supreme authorities over their individual minds, bodies, and, through the extension of the body via labor, property.

This sentence is contradictory.

This is the basis for natural rights (protection of negative liberties) and is proved via reductio ad absurdum: to lack self-sovereignty is to be a slave.

There is no such thing as natural rights. Jeremy Bentham had it right, they are nonsense on stilts.

Capitalism Communalism³ (aka libertarian municipalism): Developed by Murray Bookchin, this philosophy promotes total political devolution (i.e. municipalism) into communities analogous to the poleis of ancient Greece. Administration of the means of subsistence⁴ occurs through direct democracy, as is the provision of services such as education, justice, defense, sanitation, and disease control. These services provide the positive liberties that not only constitute a moral society, but encourage greater productivity as well.

Would this really be better than the current nation-state system? Already we have a global tragedy of the commons (think global warming) and it would be even worse in a world of city-states.

If we accept John Locke's formula for property, which is still debated and states that property is created when one mixes labor with natural resources, we come to the conclusion that natural resources (land, air, water, etc.) aren't property. However, I think it has been well illustrated that using natural resources as property is of immense utility. It is therefore my contention that, in order to treat natural resources as property, we must resurrect the social contract.

This is just over-philosophizing without much basis in reality. Natural rights don't exist, rights are given (and taken) by society.

I believe this philosophy creates an ethical society that establishes both negative and positive liberties for the individual, whilst castrating power structures to prevent abuse. Thank you for reading this grandiose monument to verbosity (if you did) and please offer any constructive criticism (as if I need to ask).

Your philosophy is lacking in its foundation because it is based on Ayn Rand, who was mightily confused. I would recommend reading up on David Hume's ideas to get a sounder foundation for your worldview, particularly on morality. Hume + Darwin = A very good worldview foundation.

Try have a read of a few other Sean Carroll blogposts, as he has written very well on these issues:

Metaphysics Matters
Abortion and the Architecture of Reality
Marriage and Fundamental Physics

 

[Dinwar]

Well-regulated Capitalism is the only system we have (now) that recognises and attempts to compensate for that. We can also see where it ends up when you leave off the bolded part.

Oddly enough, Objectivists agree. The philosophy is completely against anarchy, and one reason I call myself an Objectivist is that Objectivism is the first philosophy I've encountered to actually make a rational argument against the political theory of anarchy (which is nothing like what most people assume--not that YOU assume it; I'm just explaining why I added the "the politicaly theory of" to "anarchy").

The difference between Objectivists and most others is in what those regulations are. Objectivists hold that the government is there to protect individual rights. Courts can, if necessary, arbitrate disputes (the fact that people are rational doesn't mean they agree all the time, and ambiguity in contracts and agreements frequently needs someone outside the agreement to help interpret). Things like regulating how doctors charge their patients, as Romney's medical care bill does, or requiring permits in order to build something on land you own, as are required pretty much everwhere in the USA now, are considered wrong because they violate the rights of the people involved.

 

[Piscivore]

Oddly enough, Objectivists agree. The philosophy is completely against anarchy, and one reason I call myself an Objectivist is that Objectivism is the first philosophy I've encountered to actually make a rational argument against the political theory of anarchy (which is nothing like what most people assume--not that YOU assume it; I'm just explaining why I added the "the politicaly theory of" to "anarchy").

I agree. Anarchy, like Marxism, requires something other than a human being to work. Possibly something like Roddenberry's Vulcans

The difference between Objectivists and most others is in what those regulations are. Objectivists hold that the government is there to protect individual rights. Courts can, if necessary, arbitrate disputes (the fact that people are rational doesn't mean they agree all the time, and ambiguity in contracts and agreements frequently needs someone outside the agreement to help interpret).

And that's one place Objectivism starts to fall apart.

Things like regulating how doctors charge their patients, as Romney's medical care bill does,

I'm no Romney fan, but any health care system in a large society is going to have to control costs. Doctors, in large part, are simply technicians. Most of them do not own or innovate the knowledge they use to treat people, they are simply stewards of scientific knowledge that was developed by a long process of accumulation and shared effort. It's like water rights; I can't have the freedom to dam up a stream on my property because it takes away the ability of people down stream to use it. Unregulated, a doctor could charge people he doesn't like more, or someone who will do him a favour less. He can price minorities out of his practice, or certain treatments like abortion or birth control. Punish a single mom by overcharging her prenatal care. By all means, if a research physician does come up with a new technique or treatment, they should be rewarded for it. But no regulation? It will harm people.

And besides that; do we really want some douchbag who sees medicine as a way to get rich by charging as much as they want in the business anyway? Doctors have ego enough as it is.

...or requiring permits in order to build something on land you own, as are required pretty much everwhere in the USA now, are considered wrong because they violate the rights of the people involved.

Don't I have the right not to live next to a poorly-built safety hazard? Or a 24-hour liquor store in the middle of my residential neghborhood? Or an industrial site next to my kid's school? People don't live in a vacuum. You want to build whatever you want- there's acres of open desert with no one around. You want to live in town, you have to give up some of your "rights" to do whatever you want on "your" land to live around other people, who have rights too.

(and of course, I didn't mean "you" specifically, either. )

 

[Dinwar]

And that's one place Objectivism starts to fall apart.

You misunderstood--I meant that even if everyone involved was rational, disputes can still arise. Objectivism doesn't actually require everyone to be rational; a society based on O'ist principles merely would require the underlying philosophy of the society to be rational.

I'm no Romney fan, but any health care system in a large society is going to have to control costs.

Agreed, but it's not the government's place to tell the doctors not only how to do it, but how to report it.

And besides that; do we really want some douchbag who sees medicine as a way to get rich by charging as much as they want in the business anyway?

I do, yes. If they're good at their job they'll be worth it, and if not they'll go out of business.

Don't I have the right not to live next to a poorly-built safety hazard?

No.

You have the right to not BUY a poorly-built safety hazard, or to buy it and destroy it (provided you don't destroy anyone else's property). But you have no right to any product. You have to earn products--by creating them or by trading with those who do (directly or through an intermediary).

Or a 24-hour liquor store in the middle of my residential neghborhood?

No. You have no right to dictate how others use their property.

Or an industrial site next to my kid's school?

No. You have no right to dictate how others use their property.

You're also ignoring a simple solution to all these problems: Buy the property in question. If YOU own it, or if a private organization owns it, you can dictate how the property is used without any objections from me. This is precisely what my grandfather did, by the way: he decided he wanted a nature preserve, so he set aside a portion of his farm and disallowed all hunting (and did some re-stocking of native species, but it was largely a flop, unfortunately).

You want to live in town, you have to give up some of your "rights" to do whatever you want on "your" land to live around other people, who have rights too.

Agreed, but your limits are far, far broader than I can agree to. You can do whatever you want on your property, provided you don't harm others (and I mean REAL harm--loss of property value isn't harm, it's an assumed risk one takes when one purchases any investment, including real estate; to argue otherwise is to argue that a criminal action occurs every time stock prices dip). If what I'm doing is going to damage your property, sure, I'm not allowed to do it. If it's NOT going to damage your property, by what right can you stop me?

 

[Piscivore]

You misunderstood--I meant that even if everyone involved was rational, disputes can still arise. Objectivism doesn't actually require everyone to be rational; a society based on O'ist principles merely would require the underlying philosophy of the society to be rational.

It was a joke.

Agreed, but it's not the government's place to tell the doctors not only how to do it, but how to report it.

Why not? People left to their own devices are demonstrably greedy, dishonest, and prejudiced at least as often as they are fair and honest, often moreso. If people were fair and honest we wouldn't need rules or a society at all.

I do, yes. If they're good at their job they'll be worth it, and if not they'll go out of business.

Most professions don't kill people when they are bad at their jobs.

No.

You have the right to not BUY a poorly-built safety hazard, or to buy it and destroy it (provided you don't destroy anyone else's property). But you have no right to any product. You have to earn products--by creating them or by trading with those who do (directly or through an intermediary).

What "product" are you talking about?

You're also ignoring a simple solution to all these problems: Buy the property in question.

So the rich have more rights than everyone else? The trouble with that is- inheritance. Not all the wealthy are some Randian super-competent Ubermesch that keeps the wheels of the world turning. Some just lucked into it and are pretty damn useless.

If YOU own it, or if a private organization owns it, you can dictate how the property is used without any objections from me. This is precisely what my grandfather did, by the way: he decided he wanted a nature preserve, so he set aside a portion of his farm and disallowed all hunting (and did some re-stocking of native species, but it was largely a flop, unfortunately).

Why?

Agreed, but your limits are far, far broader than I can agree to. You can do whatever you want on your property, provided you don't harm others (and I mean REAL harm--loss of property value isn't harm, it's an assumed risk one takes when one purchases any investment, including real estate; to argue otherwise is to argue that a criminal action occurs every time stock prices dip). If what I'm doing is going to damage your property, sure, I'm not allowed to do it. If it's NOT going to damage your property, by what right can you stop me?

I'm not talking about "property values" here. I'm not talking about an HOA telling you you can't paint your house purple. I'm talking about a poorly constructed home that can fall over on my property, or catch fire and spread to my house, shoddy plumbing that can flood my property or crappy electrical work that might short out the power grid for my neighborhood. I'm talking about a business that attracts drunk drivers around my residence and creates a noise problem on my property. I'm talking about industrial activity in close proximity to my children that can put them in danger.

In that respect, yes, I bloody well do have a right to tell you what you can do with your property. And you have the same right to tell me what I can or can't do with mine.

What is the objectivist stand on building codes for historical neighborhoods?

 

[Dinwar]

Why not? People left to their own devices are demonstrably greedy, dishonest, and prejudiced at least as often as they are fair and honest, often moreso.

Actually, Freakenomics (the book) provides examples of cases where people are far more honest than dishonest (the one that comes to mind is a box of doughnuts with a coffee can saying "Doughnuts: $1" on it that made a lot more money than it lost).

Most professions don't kill people when they are bad at their jobs.

More do than you realize. Cooks, drivers, engineers, pilots, repairmen, plumbers, electricians, mechanics....Pretty much any job outside of the Ivory Tower has the potential to kill you.

What "product" are you talking about?

The house you think you have a right to.

So the rich have more rights than everyone else?

Of course not. They merely have more resources. And considering that's the nature of ALL economic theories, you can't hold that against Objectivism.

Why?

Why what? I honestly am not sure what part of my statement you're asking about, and want to clarify before I answer.

I'm talking about a poorly constructed home that can fall over on my property, or catch fire and spread to my house, shoddy plumbing that can flood my property or crappy electrical work that might short out the power grid for my neighborhood.

I've already dealt with that. If my property does physical damage to your property I owe you compensation. If it's bad enough, I may have to go to jail. But you can't tell me how to keep my property--not unless you're part owner. The risk of someone else's property damaging your property is partially assumed when you decide to live in a town.

I'm talking about a business that attracts drunk drivers around my residence and creates a noise problem on my property.

Aesthetic concerns are not valid. They're not physical damage. And drunk drivers are, in my opinion, guilty of attempted manslaughter and should be tried as such. Those people ARE violating peoples' rights.

I'm talking about industrial activity in close proximity to my children that can put them in danger.

Here's the thing: you're concerned enough to want to put a gun to someone's head, but not concerned enough to put any effort into the solution. This makes no sense to me. That's why I brought my grandfather up in the first place--he WAS concerned enough to put a great deal of effort into solving the problem, twice putting his life on the line that I'm aware of (likely more; he tends to downplay those stories). That's the proper way to fix a problem: take action. Telling someone else to take action simply doesn't work. If you think they do, check out the number of contractors that get cited for using substandard materials sometime (if you sleep higher than the second floor you may not sleep for a while).

What is the objectivist stand on building codes for historical neighborhoods?

There is NO objective stand on building codes in hsitorical neighborhoods. If people want to preserve the houses it is incumbant upon them to write the contracts by which the houses are sold such that the new owners can't make changes. If they fail to do so, the owner has all the rights of any other property owner.

 

[Dinwar]

The idea of my home damaging your home is a perfect example of where two rational people may require an arbiter. Let's say my wiring fries your home's power. I'm well within my rights to wire my house however I want. You are well within your rights to get what you pay for--in this case, electricity. A court would be necessary to ensure we reach a just agreement (I'd be willing to grant that I bore some of the burden, but you can bet your back-side I'd have the power company in there as well). Then the police would ensure, as part of their duties, that we both abide by the court's decision.

 

[Piscivore]

Actually, Freakenomics (the book) provides examples of cases where people are far more honest than dishonest (the one that comes to mind is a box of doughnuts with a coffee can saying "Doughnuts: $1" on it that made a lot more money than it lost).

Interesting.

More do than you realize. Cooks, drivers, engineers, pilots, repairmen, plumbers, electricians, mechanics....Pretty much any job outside of the Ivory Tower has the potential to kill you.

And those professions are regulated too; health codes, motor vehicle departments, electrical codes, etc. We are getting off the track here, though- no one is going to die if a particular restaurant is too expensive, they can eat at home. Health care has precious little the "DIY"er can take care of themselves.

The house you think you have a right to.

Wait; weren't you just saying my right to my property was sacrosanct? I can own the land, but if some careless turd wants to burn the house I buy down, too bad?

Of course not. They merely have more resources.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. Your solution to "want more rights" is "buy them".

And considering that's the nature of ALL economic theories, you can't hold that against Objectivism.

It certainly isn't the nature of all economic theories. Most of them attempt to address equitable resource sharing. I certainly can hold it against Objectivism for encoding and enshrining "$$$ = Right" as a fundamental priciple.

Why what? I honestly am not sure what part of my statement you're asking about, and want to clarify before I answer.

Why did the experiment fail?

I've already dealt with that. If my property does physical damage to your property I owe you compensation. If it's bad enough, I may have to go to jail.

What about preventing foreseeable harm? Isn't in both our best interests to reduce damage to either of our properties before it happens?

Further, "compensation" is after the fact, and insufficient in many cases. How do you compensate me for a family member's death, of catastophic illness?

But you can't tell me how to keep my property--not unless you're part owner. The risk of someone else's property damaging your property is partially assumed when you decide to live in a town.

As is the risk of not being able to do whatever you please on your property. Don't like it? Don't buy in town.

Aesthetic concerns are not valid.

I'm not talking aesthetics, I'm talking functionality. If I have to work in the morning, I need sleep at night. I shouldn't have to move to get that because my neighbor has the whim to build a honkey-tonk next door.

And why aren't aesthetic concerns valid? Isn't that imposing your values on my property?

They're not physical damage.

Do Objectivists not recognise any harms but physical damage?

And drunk drivers are, in my opinion, guilty of attempted manslaughter and should be tried as such. Those people ARE violating peoples' rights.

That doesn't make them go away, and they cluster around bars and create and adverse impact on my use of my property.

Here's the thing: you're concerned enough to want to put a gun to someone's head,

Spare me the hyperbole. No one is forced to live in society. You don't want "a gun to your head", go start your own Galt's Gulch.

...but not concerned enough to put any effort into the solution.

How do you mean? Building codes are a solution. Electical codes are a solution. Zoning laws are a solution. Maybe you don't like them because it goes against Objectivism's fetishizing the individual.

This makes no sense to me. That's why I brought my grandfather up in the first place--he WAS concerned enough to put a great deal of effort into solving the problem, twice putting his life on the line that I'm aware of (likely more; he tends to downplay those stories). That's the proper way to fix a problem: take action. Telling someone else to take action simply doesn't work.

Telling someone else to take action is an action. It is called "representitive government". Taking action on one's own behalf didn't work out so well for the Hatfields and McCoys.

If you think they do, check out the number of contractors that get cited for using substandard materials sometime (if you sleep higher than the second floor you may not sleep for a while).

That's exactly what building codes are for- it is action taken to reduce hazards to people's property other than the owners. Is it a perfect solution; no. Nothing human is perfect. But it's a damn sight better than "do-as-you-please". Under Objectivism, shoddy contrators would be the rule, not the exception, because any mook with a hammer can pass himself off as skilled (caveat emptor) and any nitwit with a title deed can build a precarious deathtrap.

There is NO objective stand on building codes in hsitorical neighborhoods. If people want to preserve the houses it is incumbant upon them to write the contracts by which the houses are sold such that the new owners can't make changes. If they fail to do so, the owner has all the rights of any other property owner.

Why should the seller get to dictate to the buyer how he uses his property? Isn't agreeing to such a contract "submitting one's will to another", pretty much the worse thing ever in Rand's view?

 

[Piscivore]

The idea of my home damaging your home is a perfect example of where two rational people may require an arbiter. Let's say my wiring fries your home's power. I'm well within my rights to wire my house however I want. You are well within your rights to get what you pay for--in this case, electricity. A court would be necessary to ensure we reach a just agreement (I'd be willing to grant that I bore some of the burden, but you can bet your back-side I'd have the power company in there as well).

You bet your ass you will; who do you think insists upon electrical codes in the first place? It is their equipment you're going to fry that takes down power to my house. Power distribution isn't subjective or conditional; it is engineering. It is known what a grid can support and what it cannot, and as a public service (even if privately owned and administrated) they are bound to the laws of physics and simply cannot allow people on the grid to "wire my house however I want" because it will impact the entire grid. Rand's narcissitic fantasy overlooks the fact that humans are interconnected; what you do on your property affects other people, as so far as it does, your "rights" are by necessity curtailed.

Then the police would ensure, as part of their duties, that we both abide by the court's decision.

Isn't it easier all around to intelligently and rationally recognise what is going to cause trouble beforehand and say "Sorry, you just can't do that, Lord-of-the-manor at 123 Fake Street, that's going to mess everyone up"?

 

[Dinwar]

I was going to address you point by point--you seemed to be honestly interested in Objectivism, even if only so that you could better disprove it--but you are demonstrating why I don't argue in favor of the philosophy much here. You're putting words in my mouth, ignoring what I've written, and you're criticizing O'ism without knowing enough about it to offer an informed opinion. Worse, you're bloody inconsisent.

Here's a quote that demonstrates my point:

And why aren't aesthetic concerns valid? Isn't that imposing your values on my property?

Yes, it does--in exactly the same way a secular government that doesn't favor one religion over another violates a Christian's rights.

I'm done. It's not worth it.

 

[Piscivore]

You're putting words in my mouth, ignoring what I've written, and you're criticizing O'ism without knowing enough about it to offer an informed opinion. Worse, you're bloody inconsisent.

Then correct me. I actually find myself in agreement with some of the ideas Rand offers sometimes, just not to the extremes she takes things.

Here's a quote that demonstrates my point:

And why aren't aesthetic concerns valid? Isn't that imposing your values on my property?

Yes, it does--in exactly the same way a secular government that doesn't favor one religion over another violates a Christian's rights.

I don't understand how they are similar.

Imagine if your grandfather went to all the trouble of setting up his wildlife preverve, and I owned the property next door and set up a rendering operation that made the whole thing stink like rotting meat. Is that the use to which he wants to put his property? What if he wanted a nice B&B on his land? Aethetics is part of the real value of a peice of property.

I'm done. It's not worth it.

I'm sorry to hear that.

I also apologize if my frustration with Rand spills over on you; I have found you nothing but polite and a great conversationalist thusfar and if I give offense or seem rude, it is of no fault but my own, and you should tell me if and when I do so.

 

[Dinwar]

Then correct me. I actually find myself in agreement with some of the ideas Rand offers sometimes, just not to the extremes she takes things.

I'll give it another shot...

I don't understand how they are similar.

Christians think they have the right to their privilaged status, and view any attempt to make their religion equal to all other religions and to those without religion as an attack on their rights. It's a common complaint on these forums. What you're saying is that you have the right to have your aesthetics valued more than mine--your desire to sleep at a certain time trumps my desire to do business at that time. This is a privilage. Objectivism states that neither of us gets to have that privilage--our right to decide how property is used ends at our property line. We both only get to be privilaged on our own property. You're viewing the loss of the ability to dictate how I use my property as an attack, when in reality all I'm doing is trying to make us all equals.

Imagine if your grandfather went to all the trouble of setting up his wildlife preverve, and I owned the property next door and set up a rendering operation that made the whole thing stink like rotting meat.

Don't need to imagine it--there are a lot of properties nearby that make his land less than ideal for a wildlife refuge. As I said, he's put his life on the line over this--as in, he's gone into the woods to get armed hunters out, or had guys point guns at him when he told them to leave from the road (fortunately he never does this alone). There's also the anual motorcycle party that he had to contend with. Loud music, biker gangs, drugs--it was one of those places the cops just didn't go to while the party was happening.

His solution to the last one perfectly illustrates the Objectivist solution to such issues: he made money off of them. He sells firewood during the party--unless you do stupid things on his property. He catches you and you don't get the convenience of buying firewood from him. The motorcyclists generally leave him alone--he's providing them a service, so hurting him hurts them. And as for the music, he and my grandmother found that once they started making money off the party the music wasn't so bad. Sounded a lot more like the clinking of coins, a sound that's very pleasing to the ear of any farmer.

Aethetics is part of the real value of a peice of property.

The problem is, you have no right to an increase on your investment. It's a possible, and preferred, outcome, certainly--but if you make a bad investment you will lose money. Sometimes it'll look like a good investment, but something unrpedictable will happen and you'll lose money. Sucks, but it happens. It's the risk you assume when you make your investment. The idea that damaging one's property value (which typically means the hypothetical price some undefined person would be willing to pay if the property was on the market, which it usually isn't--meaning it's an entirely fictional construct anyway) is somehow a violation of one's rights doesn't make any sense. Again, by that same logic I should be able to sue people who cause my stock prices to go down. After all, it's just as much an investment.

Isn't it easier all around to intelligently and rationally recognise what is going to cause trouble beforehand and say "Sorry, you just can't do that, Lord-of-the-manor at 123 Fake Street, that's going to mess everyone up"?

It'd also be far easier to put people in jail before they commit crimes. Doesn't make it right.

That said, you touched on a very valid way to prevent it: the power company can refuse to sell power to people who don't have a set-up they approve of. They do that with mass spectrometers, for example, and that's perfectly within their rights. I don't own the electricity, I have no right to it, and the power company can set any terms they want. If I don't like those terms I can go without, or I can make my own (I know people who do this). I can even start a rival company if I want. What I object to isn't the demand that my wiring be up to certain standards, it's the government dictating what those standards are--because once the government is involved, I have no option to opt out. I can't even not have power anymore--building codes require me to provide power, even if I don't want to use it.

This also touches on the contract thing you mentioned earlier. If something is my property I can decide the terms under which I'm willing to part with it. You can agree or disagree. If you don't like the terms, you can walk away. Then I'm stuck with something I was trying to get rid of. I'd never agree to such a contract myself, but that's a personal thing. I know plenty of people who would gladly agree to a contract requiring them to maintain a historic home in the manner appropriate for that time period--that's what they're after, after all, so the clause isn't so much a burden as an incentive. And if there's so few people willing to preserve the home in the proper manner that you can't get anyone to agree to the contract, what good do you think zoning laws will do? "Woops, accidental fire--the house is destroyed. Darn, and such a beautiful home, too. Guess we'll have to build a new one. Oh, wait, I can't--your regulations on how I build my home make building historically accurate structures illegal. Guess I'll need to build a new one!" It happens more than you'd think.

Finally, as for the "put a gun to your head" thing, I'm sorry but that's the underlying assumption of every law. The government uses force. That's why policemen and policewomen carry guns and not philosophy textbooks. It's why we drop bombs and not pamphlets. To say "There aught to be a law" is to say "Someone should make this person do what I want". Because if there IS a law, and that person DOESN'T do what you want, the final argument is always "Stop or I'll shoot". As I said, O'ism is not an anarchistic philosophy. Sometimes that's what's necessary--if someone is going to use force against innocent people, the government needs to be able to stop them (they ran into all kinds of problems with that in the 1920s--the gangsters had better weapons than most police offices). But using the government to violate someone's rights is just as immoral as if you threatened them yourself.

And again, it doesn't make sense. If you're willing to go through the effort to get a law passed, you should be willing to take less drastic measures as well. Like I said, you can talk to the person--it works surprisingly often. Or, you can buy the person's property if they're willing to sell it (or buy it before they can get it). People turn to the government far, FAR too often in our society--it's the first resort for many issues. And the only reason is cowardace. People are afraid they won't get their way, so they never try anything BUT rushing out to pass new laws. If they'd just talk to people as rational adults they'd be surprised how often they make headway.

Let's take that factory right next to the school for an example. Let's say that they've actually built the factory. Well, one thing you can do is find a new school. That'll hurt the school's bottom line (even if it's a government-run school, they get paid in part per student and in part based on student achievement, so losing students still cuts budget), and get them against the factory. It'll also get a lot of parents against the factory, as there's presumably a reason you send your kids to that school (even if it's just "It's on the way to my office"). The school could easily get in touch with the CEO and discuss their grievances. But let's say the CEO is a complete jerk who simply doesn't care (which, by the way, NOT one of the traits in Rand's heroes--Dagney and Rearden both, for example, go out of their way to help people on numerous occasions). That factory is there for a reason as well. It's making a product--and hurting the CEO's bottom line is going to get as much attention as hurting the school's bottom line. Start a campagin against the company. Make people chose to not buy the product. If they value the school more than the product, they'll agree to boycot it. Businesses are actually very fragile--most don't have enough cash reserves to last more than a month without income (actually, most don't have ANY cash reserves--my paycheck gets paid with a loan taken out against next month's income). Take away a big chunk of their customer base, and they'll go away. It's vicious and heartless and extremely nasty--but no one's rights were violated, so it works. And if you lose, well, it happens. You're an adult; you need to be able to handle that sort of thing.

That's really why I like Objectivism: it's the only philosophy I've encountered that treats all adults as if they were adults. It demands everyone handle their own problems, and in exchange you don't need to share your rewards with anyone. You're free to do as you will, but you have to face the consequences of your actions.

 

[Piscivore]

I'll give it another shot...

Christians think they have the right to their privilaged status, and view any attempt to make their religion equal to all other religions and to those without religion as an attack on their rights. It's a common complaint on these forums. What you're saying is that you have the right to have your aesthetics valued more than mine--your desire to sleep at a certain time trumps my desire to do business at that time. This is a privilage. Objectivism states that neither of us gets to have that privilage--our right to decide how property is used ends at our property line. We both only get to be privilaged on our own property. You're viewing the loss of the ability to dictate how I use my property as an attack, when in reality all I'm doing is trying to make us all equals.

No, I'm viewing the loss of my ability to use my property the way I wish as a loss. The noise of the bar doesn't stop at your property line. The blinking neon sign over the door doesn't refrain from coming in through my curtains.

My using my property to sleep does not impact your property. Your bar does impact mine.

Don't need to imagine it--there are a lot of properties nearby that make his land less than ideal for a wildlife refuge. As I said, he's put his life on the line over this--as in, he's gone into the woods to get armed hunters out, or had guys point guns at him when he told them to leave from the road (fortunately he never does this alone). There's also the anual motorcycle party that he had to contend with. Loud music, biker gangs, drugs--it was one of those places the cops just didn't go to while the party was happening.

Were any of those people adjoining property owners? None of those sound like they were using their own property, but trespassing on his.

His solution to the last one perfectly illustrates the Objectivist solution to such issues: he made money off of them. He sells firewood during the party--unless you do stupid things on his property. He catches you and you don't get the convenience of buying firewood from him. The motorcyclists generally leave him alone--he's providing them a service, so hurting him hurts them. And as for the music, he and my grandmother found that once they started making money off the party the music wasn't so bad. Sounded a lot more like the clinking of coins, a sound that's very pleasing to the ear of any farmer.

That's great, but not really what I'm asking about. How is your grandfather going to make money off my rendering plant blowing fumes across his preserve? Not once a year, but every day?

The problem is, you have no right to an increase on your investment. It's a possible, and preferred, outcome, certainly--but if you make a bad investment you will lose money. Sometimes it'll look like a good investment, but something unrpedictable will happen and you'll lose money. Sucks, but it happens. It's the risk you assume when you make your investment. The idea that damaging one's property value (which typically means the hypothetical price some undefined person would be willing to pay if the property was on the market, which it usually isn't--meaning it's an entirely fictional construct anyway) is somehow a violation of one's rights doesn't make any sense. Again, by that same logic I should be able to sue people who cause my stock prices to go down. After all, it's just as much an investment.

Again, I'm not talking about property values. This is not snark, but a serious question- is there a dollar sign on everything in Objectivism?

I'm talking about use of the property. If I buy a property for the veiw of a nearby mountain, and you want to put up a billboard on your ajoining property (with something unpleasant on it, say a Kardashian) that blocks that view, aren't you denying me the aesthetic use of my property?

It'd also be far easier to put people in jail before they commit crimes.

We do that. In AZ it is called "Preparatory Offences".

Doesn't make it right.

Why not?

That said, you touched on a very valid way to prevent it: the power company can refuse to sell power to people who don't have a set-up they approve of. They do that with mass spectrometers, for example, and that's perfectly within their rights. I don't own the electricity, I have no right to it, and the power company can set any terms they want. If I don't like those terms I can go without, or I can make my own (I know people who do this). I can even start a rival company if I want. What I object to isn't the demand that my wiring be up to certain standards, it's the government dictating what those standards are--

But the government keeps the power company from being arbitrary or punative. In absence of a government, what is stopping them from declaring your house "isn't up to their standards" when the real problem is your ethnicity? Or your homosexuality? Chik-fil-a and the BSA have demonstrated yet again that relying on the good behaviour of private companies to treat people- especially minorities- fairly is a losing propostion.

And why are the power company's standard acceptable, but the government's- who pretty much take their cue from the power company anyway- are not?

...because once the government is involved, I have no option to opt out. I can't even not have power anymore--building codes require me to provide power, even if I don't want to use it.

So don't live in the town with the building codes you object to. Live out in the desert and generate your own power. Or start your own company. Or build your house without power if you don't want it.

This also touches on the contract thing you mentioned earlier. If something is my property I can decide the terms under which I'm willing to part with it. You can agree or disagree. If you don't like the terms, you can walk away. Then I'm stuck with something I was trying to get rid of. I'd never agree to such a contract myself, but that's a personal thing. I know plenty of people who would gladly agree to a contract requiring them to maintain a historic home in the manner appropriate for that time period--that's what they're after, after all, so the clause isn't so much a burden as an incentive. And if there's so few people willing to preserve the home in the proper manner that you can't get anyone to agree to the contract, what good do you think zoning laws will do? "Woops, accidental fire--the house is destroyed. Darn, and such a beautiful home, too. Guess we'll have to build a new one. Oh, wait, I can't--your regulations on how I build my home make building historically accurate structures illegal. Guess I'll need to build a new one!" It happens more than you'd think.

Don't they usually build a new structure that visually approximates the old structure? I wasn't really talking about strictly preservation, but a "keeping in character with the historic neighborhood" sort of thing- meaning nothing Brutalist or Bauhaus can be built among SF's "Painted Ladies", for example. Is such property use restrictions anathema to Objectivism?

Finally, as for the "put a gun to your head" thing, I'm sorry but that's the underlying assumption of every law. The government uses force.

By that standard, the company that employs you does to. You follow company policy or you're fired.

Consequences are not threats of violence, and it is pure emotional hyperbole to so characterize it.

Unless you live in China or North Korea, but I think you are American.

That's why policemen and policewomen carry guns and not philosophy textbooks.

Officers carry guns because criminals do. Not to routinely threaten people to obey building codes or to pay taxes. No one (in the US) faces a firing squad for putting in substandard wiring.

It's why we drop bombs and not pamphlets.

Actually, we've done both.

To say "There aught to be a law" is to say "Someone should make this person do what I want".

Yes, but the thing about the way you are characterizing it is that in a representative government, just one person saying "there ought to be a law" doesn't make it so. And you have as equal a right to say "there ought to be a law" as I do. One person does not dictate to the government what the laws should be.

Because if there IS a law, and that person DOESN'T do what you want, the final argument is always "Stop or I'll shoot".

No it isn't. Hardly ever. In fact, that was far more common in the 19th Century, when the industrialists had their own armies and the government was weaker and less representative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaconda_Road_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisbee_Deportation

Unless you are Black (and that is a whole different issue) you are far more likely to be shot (or even have a gun pointed at you) by a lone gunman with emotional problems than a cop.

As I said, O'ism is not an anarchistic philosophy. Sometimes that's what's necessary--if someone is going to use force against innocent people, the government needs to be able to stop them (they ran into all kinds of problems with that in the 1920s--the gangsters had better weapons than most police offices).

That's still the case.

But using the government to violate someone's rights is just as immoral as if you threatened them yourself.

The problem with that is there are many different interpretations for what someone's "rights" are. There aren't any objective ones (capitalized or not).

And again, it doesn't make sense. If you're willing to go through the effort to get a law passed, you should be willing to take less drastic measures as well. Like I said, you can talk to the person--it works surprisingly often.

But not often enough that we don't have to have contingencies for when it doesn't.

Or, you can buy the person's property if they're willing to sell it (or buy it before they can get it).

Again, this means the rich have a disproprtionate amount of "rights". Through no fault of mine or any merit of hers, Paris Hilton has a greater capacity to excercise her will regarding property useage than I do.

Also, if there is no government enforcing otherwise, minorities are often denined an opportunity to excercise this "right"- owners can, have and will refuse to sell to them simply for being "undesirable".

People turn to the government far, FAR too often in our society--it's the first resort for many issues.

Because the government is supposed to be impartial, and people are not reasonable.

Several years ago, a neighbor boy stole my son's iPod. We had no proof, but he was around right before it was stolen. I called the cops, not out of cowardice, but because the office who responded would be impartial. Had I gone down there, I would have had to basically accuse the other boy of theft, which might embarass the boy's parents and make them defensive, and start an argument and a lot of bad blood. As it was, the cop was able to go over there, say he was looking for the missing iPod and the boy had been around, can he ask some questions... and we ended up getting the device back without hostility or drama. That's a win-win-win in my book.

And the only reason is cowardace. People are afraid they won't get their way, so they never try anything BUT rushing out to pass new laws.

Now that's just appeal to emotion. People don't "rush out an pass new laws". No one has that power.

If they'd just talk to people as rational adults they'd be surprised how often they make headway.

That would be great, if people acted like rational adults. Very, very few people do that, and we have to write our laws and construct our society around what happens when they aren't.

If everybody acted like rational adults, we wouldn't need laws. I agree. They don't. Peruse any volume of crime statistics as pleases you.

Let's take that factory right next to the school for an example. Let's say that they've actually built the factory. Well, one thing you can do is find a new school.

Which means I have to move, and I cannot use my property in the manner I wish anymore. And anyway, I wasn't talking about a big corporation, but some penny-ante backyard setup with no controls and no safety oversight. Say a guy's backyard welding/painting scheme- explosive and hazardous materials galore.

That'll hurt the school's bottom line (even if it's a government-run school, they get paid in part per student and in part based on student achievement, so losing students still cuts budget), and get them against the factory. It'll also get a lot of parents against the factory, as there's presumably a reason you send your kids to that school (even if it's just "It's on the way to my office"). The school could easily get in touch with the CEO and discuss their grievances. But let's say the CEO is a complete jerk who simply doesn't care (which, by the way, NOT one of the traits in Rand's heroes--Dagney and Rearden both, for example, go out of their way to help people on numerous occasions).

Yes, and that's a beef I have with her writing. People very often are jerks. Her "heroes" are all Mary Sues. In the real world, the CEO probably doesn't care. The jerk doing his unlicensed welding sure doesn't. It's his property and he'll do with it what he wants.

That's really why I like Objectivism: it's the only philosophy I've encountered that treats all adults as if they were adults.

In that respect, then, it is no more realistic that Marxism. I'd recommend spending a day in traffic court sometime, and tell me what you think of "rational adults" then.

It demands everyone handle their own problems, and in exchange you don't need to share your rewards with anyone.

Which is against the whole point of society. We band together to help each other so no one person has to handle their problems on their own. I help you when you need it because I might need help someday. I share share my "rewards" so that the next time someone else is rewarded, they share with me. That's self-interest too. And a lot more rational, as it is a fact very very few can live entirely without others, and certainly not in the lifestyle we now enjoy.

You're free to do as you will, but you have to face the consequences of your actions.

That's the universe; it is not particular to any philosophy or system of governance. They only get involced in determining what those consequences will entail.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Wait, so, if I'm an Objectivist, I can buy a piece of property, fill it with rotting carcasses, floodlights, and 24/7 klaxons playing A Walk in the Black Forest at 100 DB, then buy up all the surrounding land at a steal in a year or two when people are driven away? And no one can complain because I'm doing this on my own property as is my sacred Objectivist rights?

I kinda like this philosophy.

 

[Dinwar]

And no one can complain

What an odd statement. I've detailed several methods for complaining about unwanted activities.

THIS is why I dislike discussing Objectivism here. Had Beelzebuddy read my post with the care he's shown in other parts of this forum, he'd see that his statement is clearly a straw-man and has no relation to the philosophy in question. But because it's Objectivism such care is unnecessary in many peoples' eyes.

My using my property to sleep does not impact your property. Your bar does impact mine.

Your wishing does not create in anyone any obligation. And there's a difference between you passing a law that I can't do what I want with my property and me doing something that makes your property less ideal for what you want.

Were any of those people adjoining property owners? None of those sound like they were using their own property, but trespassing on his.

Several of them were, yes. And it's the same concept.

That's great, but not really what I'm asking about. How is your grandfather going to make money off my rendering plant blowing fumes across his preserve? Not once a year, but every day?

Back home there were a bunch of people who grew up in towns that decided they wanted to move to the country. They chose to live next to some pretty big hog farms (I've lived near rendering plants, paper mills, and hog farms--I'll take either of the former any day!). Then they did exactly what you're proposing: they sued the farmers, and tried to pass laws on how much waste they could contain. This is precisely the situation you're describing. My grandfather's response was to laugh uproariously at them, and call them "dumbies". "If you move next to a hog farm it's going to smell like *explative*". And if you were there first? He'd laugh at you and say "You're in the country. That's how things work out here."

I'm talking about use of the property. If I buy a property for the veiw of a nearby mountain, and you want to put up a billboard on your ajoining property (with something unpleasant on it, say a Kardashian) that blocks that view, aren't you denying me the aesthetic use of my property?

Yes. But that's an assumed risk. To quote Rand: "But profits, ma'am, well, that depends on what you're after." Objectivism does NOT put dollar signs on everything, but economics isn't just about money (entire economies existed without it). You purchased a house for a view. That is an investment--and the aesthetic pleasure you get from that view is the return on investment. If I own the mountain and don't put anything up to obscure the view, you're also getting a return on MY investment. If I DO put up a billboard you don't like, yes, your investment has lost some value. It sucks, and personally I sympathize--one reason I love paleontology is that I get to go into wild places, which I value highly. But this is nothing more than one of your investments taking a dive. There's no violation of rights here--you have no right to the property. I have no obligation to respect your aesthetics; after all, some people LIKE billboards (and not Rand's characters, either; I've heard people say that billboards are useful when driving, as landmarks and as something to look at).

Yeah, it sucks for you. It'd suck for me. But unless we own the land, we don't get to dictate how it's used.

Let's spini this around: let's say I own the mountain, and I want there to be a ski resort up there. Your home will block the view of the lake by my patrons. Do I get to tell you to take your home down? It's an aesthetic issue, after all--same as the one you presented.

Why not?

To be clear: You were asking why I think it's not right to arrest someone before they commit a crime.

The answer is rather obvious: if they haven't committed a crime there's no justification for the arrest. They've done nothing wrong, so there's no difference between arresting them and arresting little old ladies crossing streets. I should add, though, that conspiracy to commit a crime is itself a crime.

Or your homosexuality? Chik-fil-a and the BSA have demonstrated yet again that relying on the good behaviour of private companies to treat people- especially minorities- fairly is a losing propostion.

Chik-Fil-A has every right to refuse to sell to homosexuals. And I have every right to get as many people to not eat there as I can. A customer does not own the product, and has no right to that product--therefore the owner can refuse to sell it to them for whatever reason they want. The customers have every right to stop purchasing the product, however, and a business without customers is a contradiction that will resolve itself very quickly, be it a power company or a fast-food franchize.

Also, the BSA isn't exactly a private organization. Their finances are tied with the government's in a lot of ways.

And why are the power company's standard acceptable, but the government's- who pretty much take their cue from the power company anyway- are not?

Because the power comapny owns the electricity and the means of distribution, while the government does not.

Is such property use restrictions anathema to Objectivism?

If it's part of the sales contract, no; Objectivism is fine with it. If it's the government--who DOES NOT OWN THE PROPERTY (caps because that's the main theme in this discussion)--imposes such restrictions, yes, it is.

By that standard, the company that employs you does to. You follow company policy or you're fired.

The difference is that the company won't kill me, and that I have no right to the job they provide.

Officers carry guns because criminals do. Not to routinely threaten people to obey building codes or to pay taxes.

You and I have obviously had vastly different expeirences with cops. Cops have pulled guns on my father for not obeying them (that was the ONLY reason--my father was actually obeying the law, and the cop demanded that he violate it).

Yes, but the thing about the way you are characterizing it is that in a representative government, just one person saying "there ought to be a law" doesn't make it so. And you have as equal a right to say "there ought to be a law" as I do. One person does not dictate to the government what the laws should be.

The fact that 10,000 people vote "Yes" doesn't matter--they don't own the property, they don't get a say in how it's used.

 

[Dinwar]

I don't mean to skip out on the rest of your post, Piscivore--just ran out of time.